On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:45:01AM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote: >> Actually we are not that far from being able to do completely without >> any GPIO number, and maybe that's what we should aim for. I think the >> only remaining offender is the sysfs interface. > > And that is a user API, and there's lots of users of it (eg, on Raspberry > Pi platforms.) So changing it isn't going to be easy - I'd say that it's > impractical. > > What you're suggesting would be like re-numbering Linux syscalls. Uh, I expressed myself poorly. What I intended to say is that once we have a sysfs alternative that does not rely on GPIO numbers (and thus have the same feature coverage as the integer interface), we can require new platforms to exclusively rely on gpiod/sysfs2, and encourage older users to switch to it if they have an issue with the way integers are handled or need one of the new features. I don't foresee that we will ever be able to retire the integer interface, however I would like to be able to say "your problem will be solved if you switch to gpiod" instead of having to juggle with potentially conflicting integer range requirements from different platforms. Right now the only thing that prevents us to say that is the lack of a consistent sysfs interface. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
